Mosquera v. Roach, 2015-04237, 2015-10309. Index No. 706879/14.
| Decision Date | 28 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | 2015-04237, 2015-10309. Index No. 706879/14. |
| Parties | Edwin MOSQUERA, respondent, v. Dennis ROACH, et al., appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
151 A.D.3d 1056
59 N.Y.S.3d 46
Edwin MOSQUERA, respondent,
v.
Dennis ROACH, et al., appellants.
2015-04237, 2015-10309. Index No. 706879/14.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
June 28, 2017.
Armienti, DeBellis, Guglielmo & Rhoden, LLP, New York, NY (Vanessa M. Corchia of counsel), for appellants.
Frekhtman & Associates, Brooklyn, NY (Eileen Kaplan of counsel), for respondent.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Brathwaite Nelson, J.), entered March 11, 2015, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and (2), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court entered September 28, 2015, as denied that branch of their motion which was for leave to renew their opposition to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
ORDERED that the order entered March 11, 2015, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order entered September 28, 2015, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when his vehicle was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned by the defendant Premier Utility Services, LLC, and operated by the defendant Dennis
Roach. The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries. After issue was joined, but before discovery, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability based, inter alia, upon his affidavit wherein he stated that the defendants' vehicle struck his vehicle in the rear as he was in the process of bringing it to a gradual and complete stop at a red light. The defendants opposed the motion, arguing both that the motion was premature since discovery had yet to take place and that a triable issue of fact existed as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cazares v. City of N.Y., 10098/14.
...for the dangerous condition thereat, which is sufficient to warrant resolution by the trier of fact (see Mosquera v. Roach, 151 A.D.3d 1056 [2017] ; Pouncey v. New York City Trans. Auth., 135 A.D.3d 728 [2016] ; Sanchez v. Mapp, 127 A.D.3d 844 [2015] ). As such, defendants D & B and E–J, ha......
-
JNG Constr., Ltd. v. Roussopoulos
...to present the facts underlying his motion to vacate in opposition to the preclusion motion ( CPLR 2221[e][3] ; see Mosquera v. Roach, 151 A.D.3d 1056, 1058, 59 N.Y.S.3d 46 ). We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny that branch of the defendant's January 2017 cross motion wh......
-
Seidman v. Einig & Bush, LLP
...845 N.Y.S.2d 102 ). Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see 59 N.Y.S.3d 46 Rosenstrauss v. Jacobs & Jacobs, 56 A.D.3d 453, 454, 866 N.Y.S.2d 757 ; Velie v. Ellis Law, P.C., 48 A.D.3d 674, 675, 854 N.Y.S.2d 137 ; Pedro......
-
Fairfield Beach 9th, LLC v. Shepard-Neely
...its original opposition to tenant's motion (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; see JNG Constr., Ltd. v Roussopoulos, 170 A.D.3d 1136 [2019]; Mosquera v Roach, 151 A.D.3d 1056 [2017]). In any event, any such payments would seem to be in light of our holding in Fairfield Beach 9th, LLC v Shepard-Neely (74 Mi......